On-line Journal Modelling the New Europe Issue no. 23/2017 THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY (PSD) IN ROMANIA WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE ROMANIAN AND EUROPEAN LEFT. THE PSD MANIFESTO FOR THE 2016 PARLIAMENTARIAN ELECTIONS Horia-Alin LUPU PhD candidate, College of Political, Administrative and Communication Sciences (FSPAC), Babes-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca [email protected], [email protected] DOI:10.24193/OJMNE.2017.23.04 Abstract The following contribution aims to shed light upon some facts that can be relevant to the academic field as well as to the practical social/political life, facts related to whether the Romanian Social Democratic Party (Partidul Social Democrat, PSD) properly belongs to the left wing political spectrum in Europe (more precisely to the ideological family of socialists and social-democrats) and also regarding its continuity with the traditional Romanian (interwar period and pre-1918) left. I will review the main theoretical approaches concerning the role and the functions of ideology for political parties and, as a case study, I will analyze the party’s political programs and electoral manifestos for the 2016 legislative elections. Keywords: ideology, social-democracy, political party, political program, electoral manifesto. Introduction This article aims to realize a research whose main object is the Social Democratic Party in Romania (PSD), currently the main parliamentary and governing party12 (since December 2016 – January 2017), as well as the main national political actor, also taking into account the votes and mandates obtained at the local elections in June, 2016. The main aspects which will be analyzed will be the party ideology, starting with the official documents of the party (political programs and electoral materials/manifestos) used in the electoral campaign of November-December 2016, whose validity was repeatedly reasserted by PSD and its leading staff up to the present. These will be compared mainly with the 12 Forming the coalition cabinet, as major partner, together with the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats Party (ALDE). 45 On-line Journal Modelling the New Europe Issue no. 23/2017 typical positioning on similar themes of European parties with the same ideological orientation, and colleagues of the PSD in transnational party organizations. Also, in order to properly define de context, I will present aspects linked to the historical evolution of socialism and social-democracy, I will try to synthesize the historical context of the main values and ideological benchmarks of the evolution of the socialist and social-democratic left at an international and European level, including also the main theoretical and methodological approaches regarding the research and measurement of the ideological position of political parties. After Romania’s accession to the European Council (1993) and especially to the European Union (2007), but mainly after PSD’s admission to the Socialist International (2003) and later to the Party of European Socialists (2005), the affiliation movement following a similar trend with the majority of “classical” left parties in Central and Eastern Europe, the problem of certain structural, systematical or significant differences between political parties in Western Europe and their equivalents as ideological framing to the East lost most of its significance. Thus, the series of articles and, later, books, which have Herbert Kitschelt as author/co-author (Kitschelt, 1992; 1995; Kitschelt, Mansfeldova, Markowski, Toka, 1999) suggest the existence of a different ideological placement, perhaps even a radically distinct one, of left and right parties from the countries of the former socialist and soviet bloc compared with their equivalents from the West, depending on the existing types of cleavages in post-communist countries and on the way in which these combine with each other under the pressure from parties and political leaders to mobilize/activate them. The aforementioned events, and especially the affiliation of the majority of East-European parties to international party organization, resulted in a growing pressure toward convergence, at least at the level of doctrines and official political documents. Terminological specifications At the conceptual/terminological level, we can say that nowadays the terms socialism and social-democracy are synonyms (with a touch of complementarity) or functional equivalents. According to various authors, there are several explanations regarding their distinct meanings from the past. Ware (1996, pp. 33-35) mentions two of these. According to the first, we can discuss about social-democracy especially after the left-wing (socialists) parties were contaminated with the economic ideas of John Maynard Keynes around the 46 On-line Journal Modelling the New Europe Issue no. 23/2017 Second World War (as an essential turning spot being the Congress of the German Social Democratic Party, SPD from Bad-Godesberg, in 1959), concerning the emphasis upon mixed (market) economy, unlike the previous vision which insisted on socializing/nationalizing the economy and the means of production. A second distinction mentioned by Ware would be the one of connection (existent or not) between parties and trade unions. Thus, parties which maintained close connections with these (regardless of whether they were actually created by the trade unions or not) would represent the social-democratic type (the classic example of a left-wing political party created by trade unions – British Labor Party – appeared as a result of a motion voted in the year 1900 by the British Trade Union Congress) and those with weak connections with trade unions would represent the socialist type (the case of the French Socialist Party, created in the last quarter of the 19th century by a group of intellectuals and revolutionaries). In his study (1998, p. 185), A. Carpinschi equates social democracy with “parliamentary socialism” as he suggests that there is a certain closeness to the “revisionism” of the late XIX century (for further details see below) and emphasizing, unlike Ware in the first distinction, two characteristics: the reconciliation of socialism with the liberal- democratic system and with the capitalist society. Socialism and social-democracy – elements of history of thinking Depending on the authors, one can find the roots of a proto-socialist type of thinking with the classical Greek or late-medieval political thinking, the names that are cited the most being Plato (The Republic) and Thomas Morus (Utopia), according to Ball and Dagger (2000, p. 128). References can also be made to fragments from The New Testament or to the practices of the early Christians from the first centuries A. D., up until the adoption of Christianism as the official religion in the Roman Empire. However, the true precursors would be those known as the “utopian socialists”, category which includes names such as Claude-Henry de Saint-Simon, Auguste Compte (founder and supporter of positivism or “social physics”, as he intended to call what we label nowadays “social science”), Charles Fourrier and Robert Owen (Ball, Dagger, 2000, pp. 130- 132). Despite the differences among them, these socialists were the exponents of a certain Enlightenment-type, planning oriented maximalism, critics of capitalism as a generator of excessive selfishness and waste, unscientific and encouraging immoral educational models. The suggested solutions, be it at a macro-theoretical level or at micro-applicative one 47 On-line Journal Modelling the New Europe Issue no. 23/2017 emphasized the communitarian side of human nature and the importance of the interaction between individuals, the use of scientific knowledge and expertise, the power of motivation and the role of education in the success and development of communities and society. The socialist thinking that we know today was to be truly structured in the post-Hegel period, its ideas being laid down by Karl Marx and Friederich Engels. The process that Marx started and which he continued together with his co-author, Engels, was extensive, systematic and claimed a scientific nature for itself (a claim underscored after Marx death). One of the defining elements of Marxism would be the takeover and development of the G. W. F. Hegel dialectic vision of history, in which the relevant advancement is preceded by the ruptures/alienations, expressed through the thesis/antithesis conflict and the advent of progress through synthesis (Hegel, 2000/1807). Another would be the collective and communitarian perspective over society and individuals, the social class and membership to it having a decisive relevance for one’s identity. The “engine” of history for Marx and Engels is represented by the fight for survival and for progress of the individuals/communities, through a combination of evolution and conflicts in which the class struggle (and the exploitation that comes with it, generated by the type of relation with the means of production) is essential. Those who possess, master and control the means of production are the ones who will control the power in society (political power included, political institutions being subordinated and functionally dependent on the economy; the same thing with the ideology – the prevalent pattern of thought from/about society, which generates a “false consciousness” of those who are exploited). Those who are reduced by the need of survival/economic gain to the state of being associated with them (slaves, peasants, proletarians/workers) are subjected